Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191
www.keaipublishing.com/undsp

Case Report

Grouting-induced ground heave and building damage in

tunnel construction: A case study of Shenzhen metro
Zonglei Dong, Xuemin Zhang, Chenxi Tong ⇑, Xinlei Chen, Han Feng, Sheng Zhang
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China

Received 27 November 2021; received in revised form 8 April 2022; accepted 9 April 2022
Available online 16 July 2022

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of the grouting-induced ground heave and building damage in the tunnel construction of Shenzhen
Metro Line 10, which passes through a crowded urban area with water-rich strata in Shenzhen, the province of Guangdong, China. It
was reported that the ground surface heave of up to approximately 500 mm was observed, and the customs building above the tunnels
was seriously damaged because of a 200 mm heave. Such a significant heave was closely associated with the advanced curtain grouting
adopted in the tunnel construction. To this end, the heave of the ground surface and the displacement and deformation of the customs
building were examined. The discrete element method (DEM) was then used to qualitatively analyze the relations between the grouting
parameters and the ground disturbance. The results demonstrated that the poor dewatering work in the early stages increased the dif-
ficulty of grouting. The grouting materials with high viscosity and large grouting pressure were required for water blocking because of the
large amount of confined water in the tunnel, resulting in fracture grouting. The ground was then uplifted due to the large inflow of the
slurry and the excess pore water pressure. Finally, the lessons learned from this incident were discussed. The presented case study pro-
vides a reference for tunnel construction in urban areas with water-rich strata.

Keywords: Grouting; Ground heave; Building damage; Field test; Numerical simulation

1 Introduction before the excavation of tunnels (Zhang et al., 2019a;

Yang et al., 2020b; Gan et al., 2022).
Subways are considered a safe and environmentally Despite these advantages, grouting-induced soil defor-
friendly mode of transportation and has developed rapidly mations and rock fractures have frequently been reported
in China, with a total subway mileage of up to approxi- in the literature because of the difficulty in controlling
mately 5000 km in 41 cities, either in operation or under grouting quality in engineering practices (Liu et al.,
construction (He et al., 2020). Passing through the densely 2020). A ground surface heave of up to 3 cm was observed
built urban areas is inevitable; it is also possible to encoun- near the Dergano station at the end of the grouting and
ter complex geological conditions during the construction excavation of the tunnel crown in Milan, Italy (Contini
of subways, which might result in some tricky problems et al., 2007). Sheen (2002) reported that a six-story building
such as ground settlement (Ou et al., 1993), the deforma- inclined from 4 to 12.5 cm with a 5 cm rotation of the top
tion of the adjacent tunnels and buildings (Zhao et al., walls due to the wrong pressure of the jet grouting for
2019), and even the failure of the infrastructure (Finno underpinning the adjacent building. Other similar cases
et al., 2005). In this context, grouting technology is widely such as the uneven uplifts of track and trackbed due to sec-
employed for ground improvement and seepage control ondary grouting in a shield tunnel (Liu et al., 2018) and the
vertical uplifts, horizontal convergence, and seepage
⇑ Corresponding author.
induced by the grouting of an adjacent foundation pit
E-mail address: cxtong@csu.edu.cn (C. Tong). (Ding et al., 2019) have also been reported. So far,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2022.04.002
2467-9674/Ó 2022 Tongji University. Publishing Services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1176 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the ing the construction of Shenzhen Metro Line 10. The pri-
grouting-induced disturbance to the ground and structures. mary objectives of this study include (1) presenting
Some studies have focused on the development of analyti- comprehensive field test data on the ground heave and
cal theories to analyze the ground deformation, such as the the building deformation (i.e., the heave, tilt, and cracks
cavity expansion theory (Vesić, 1972) and the conical shear of the building), (2) investigating the correlations between
failure theory (Graf, 1969), while the others have attempted the disturbance to the ground and the diffusion character-
to develop new grouting technologies as remedial measures istics of the grouting through the simulations based on the
such as compensation grouting for compensating for the discrete element method (DEM), and (3) finding out the
excavation-induced settlements and corrective grouting potential cause of this incident and presenting the lessons
for re-leveling building position after inclination learned from this study.
(Schweiger et al., 2004; Zhou et al., 2018). Nevertheless,
these researches tend to focus on the lifting effect on the 2 Project overview
ground and structures and neglect the details of the diffu-
sion of the slurry into the ground. Shenzhen Metro Line 10 in Guangdong province, China
Furthermore, more attention has been paid to the slurry was officially opened on Aug. 18, 2020. This work studied a
diffusion behaviors during the grouting process recently. section of it located between the Futiankouan station and a
Specifically, the slurry diffusion, the reinforcement range, shield shaft with a total length of 82.85 m. As shown in
the variation of the grouting parameters, and the grouting Fig. 1, the tunnels run underneath a customs building,
effect under various conditions have been examined using which was constructed in 1989 with foundations of single
theoretical analysis, model tests, and numerical simulations footings connected by foundation beams; it consists of a
(Wang et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2020a; Du et al., 2021). two-story frame structure and an inspection platform made
These studies have obtained more details about the flow of compacted earth with retaining walls.
characteristics of the slurry transported in the ground, The horseshoe-shaped tunnels are buried 17.8–19.06 m
which helps understand the diffusion mechanism of the underground with a width and height of 5.20 m and
grouting. However, the correlations between the distur- 5.61 m. The undermining method was used in the tunnel
bance to the ground and the grouting diffusion characteris- construction, as shown in Fig. 2(a), with the following
tics are rarely discussed due to the limitations of main steps: (1) the grouting construction; (2) ring excava-
experimental conditions and computational efficiency tion of the upper bench with reserved core soil; (3) applica-
(Yun et al., 2017; Ding et al., 2020). tion of primary support of the upper bench; (4) excavation
Therefore, this work presents a case study of the and application of primary support of the lower bench; (5)
grouting-induced ground heave and building damage dur- application of secondary lining. The tunnel support is com-

Fig. 1. Layout of the tunnel site (Unit: m).

 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1177

posed of a 30 cm thick primary support with I-shaped steel

sets embedded and a 30 cm thick secondary lining, which is
detailed shown in Fig. 2(b).

2.1 Geological conditions

The site is located on the coast of the South China Sea.

The newly deposited strata in this area are extremely weak,
which has a negative effect on tunnel construction. Field
and laboratory tests were conducted to obtain the soil pro-
file and geotechnical parameters. The field tests, including
the standard penetration test (SPT), the heavy dynamic
penetration test, the lateral loading test, the static loading
test, and the pumping test, and the laboratory tests, includ-
ing the consolidation test, the direct shear test, and the tri-
axial compression test, primarily analyzed the basic
physical properties of the soil, as shown in Fig. 3. The
strata consist of fill, silty sand, silty clay, coarse sand, sandy
cobble, and strongly weathered granite from top to bot-
tom. The sandy cobble stratum distributed in the tunneling
area is a mixture of pebbles, sand, and a small content of
clay, with a uniformity coefficient (Cu) of 94.8 and a curva-
ture coefficient (Cc) of 1.75, indicating that the particle size
distribution of the sandy cobble is wide and continuous.
The advanced grouting reinforcement is necessary before
tunnel excavation, because the sandy cobble stratum is
loose and with little cohesion. Nevertheless, the tunneling
site is rich in groundwater and connected with the nearby
Sham Chun River, causing the sandy cobble to have a high
Fig. 2. (a) Longitudinal section of tunnels, and (b) tunnel support (Unit:
mm).
permeability coefficient of 80 m/d. And the groundwater
can be constantly replenished. Challenges are encountered

Fig. 3. Soil profile and geotechnical parameters.

1178 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

that how to guarantee the reinforcement effect of grouting 1.0, sulphoaluminate cement slurry with a water-cement
while minimizing the ground disturbance to the water-rich ratio of 0.8–1.0, and Portland cement–sodium silicate
strata during the tunnel construction. slurry with a water-cement ratio of 0.8–1.0 and a ratio of
the cement slurry to the sodium silicate of 1.
2.2 Grouting construction The advanced curtain grouting simultaneously began
from the two opposite sides, the shield shaft and the
Three rows of vertical jet grouting piles were con- Futiankouan station, and finished under the customs build-
structed from the ground surface downward before grout- ing, with eight and seven cycles for the left and right lines
ing construction, as shown in Fig. 4(a). The jet grouting respectively, as shown in Fig. 4(a). For clarity, subscripts
piles enclose the tunnel grouting area, interrupting the flow L and R represent the left and right lines of the tunnel
path of groundwater to the grouting area and preventing respectively, and subscripts 1–4 indicate the grouting cycles
the excessive loss of the slurry. The retrograde grouting (Fig. 4(a)). For example, SL1 denotes the first grouting
technique was adopted in the advanced curtain grouting. cycle of the left line near the shield shaft. Table 1 tabulates
Most of the injection holes are distributed in the up- the detailed grouting information. As it can be seen, the
bench of the tunnels, and the angle between the grouting grouting cycles in early dates, such as grouting cycle of
pipes and the tunneling direction ranges from 4° to 34° SR1, SR2, SL1, FR1, and FL1, have a longer duration, larger
to ensure the uniform spreading of the slurry, as shown reinforced length and proportion of Portland cement–
in Fig. 4(b) and (c). Three grouting materials were used: sodium silicate slurry in the grouting material, compared
Portland cement slurry with a water-cement ratio of 0.8– with the subsequent grouting cycles.

Fig. 4. A schematic of the grouting work: (a) layout of the grouting cycles, (b) injection holes on the tunnel face, and (c) front and side views of the
grouting tubes.
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1179

Table 1
The detailed grouting information.
Grouting Injection date Reinforced Grouting pressure Grouting volume (m3)/Volume percentage
cycle length (m) (MPa)
Portland cement Sulphoaluminate Portland cement–sodium
slurry cement slurry silicate slurry
SR1 2017.11-22–2018.01-02 20 2.0–3.0 287/20% 478/33% 679/47%
2018.03-01–2018.03-11
SR2 2018.07-13–2018.07-19 16 1.5–2.0 159/24% 28/4% 488/72%
2018.07-24–2018.08-09
2018.08-28–2018.09-04
SR3 2018.11-01–2018.11-04 14 2.0 100/79% 26/21% 0/0%
2018.11-12–2018.11-14
2018.11-17
SL1 2018.06-06–2018.08-19 20 1.5–2.0 180/23% 21/3% 570/74%
SL2 2018.09-29–2018.10-06 13 2.0 57/67% 28/33% 0/0%
SL3 2018.10-19–2018.10-27 13 2.0 71/70% 30/30% 0/0%
SL4 2018.11-05–2018.11-10 9 2.0 48/69% 22/31% 0/0%
FR1 2018.01-17–2018.01-21 20 1.0 84/11% 91/12% 571/77%
2018.01-25–2018.02-07
2018.03-03–2018.03-14
2018.03-21–2018.04-08
2018.05-02–2018.05-16
FR2 2018.09-14–2018.09-15 13 2.0 65/70% 28/30% 0/0%
2018.09-18–2018.09-23
FR3 2018.10-9–2018.10-21 13 2.0 79/46% 0/0% 94/54%
FR4 2018.11-02–2018.11-11 13 2.0 83/59% 38/31% 0/0%
FL1 2018.01-12–2018.02-07 20 1.0 159/19% 149/18% 508/62%
2018.04-09–2018.05-01
FL2 2018.08-19–2018.08-28 13 2.0 285/49% 293/50% 8/1%
FL3 2018.10-02–2018.10-08 13 2.0 81/66% 42/34% 0/0%
FL4 2018.10-23–2018.11-03 13 2.0 95/20% 377/80% 0/0%

3 Field tests of ground heave and building deformation The measured data therefore only represent the deforma-
tion values since the monitoring dates.
3.1 Field test items
3.2 Ground heave
Figure 5 presents the layouts of the measuring points,
including the ground surface heave, the building heave, tilt, Figure 7 presents the monitored ground surface heave
and cracking. The test dates of the ground surface heave during the grouting cycles of SR1, SL1, and SR2. The ground
and the building heave start from Nov. 22, 2017, and the surface continued to heave since the grouting work began,
test dates of the building tilt and cracking are Sep. 26, and the maximum heave value exceeded 250 mm in just
2018—Dec. 9, 2018. All deformations are presented in 41 days until Jan. 2, 2018, due to the high grouting pressure
the tunneling direction and perpendicular to it in the top of 2.0–3.0 MPa and the considerable grouting volume
view. For the sake of brevity, we define the tunneling direc- amounting to 1309 m3. Severe ground surface heaves were
tion as TD and the direction perpendicular to it as PTD. observed, so the advanced grouting near the shield shaft
We set 35 and 27 monitoring points for observing the stalled except for some additional injections for treating
settlement of the ground surface and the building, respec- the tunnel leakage, e.g., from Mar. 1, 2018 to Mar. 11,
tively. The measuring points of H9, H11 and H13 failed, 2018. In the following grouting construction, the grouting
and 24 monitoring points are valid for the building heave, pressure was controlled to be smaller, and the grouting vol-
as shown in Fig. 5(a). Eight inclinometers were also ume decreased, which alleviated the ground heave. How-
installed in the building, as shown in Fig. 5(b), which can ever, the grouting work in the left and right lines had to
record the dip angles in the x- and y-direction of the mea- be conducted simultaneously sometimes limited to the con-
suring point (see Fig. 6(a)). In other words, the dip angles struction deadline, resulting in a dramatic uplift of the
in the TD and PTD were obtained. Five representative ground surface again (e.g., from Jul. 13, 2018 to Jul. 19,
cracks were chosen to install the strain gauges to obtain 2018 and from Jul. 24, 2018 to Aug. 9, 2018).
the real-time values of the width of the cracks, as illustrated The contour maps in Fig. 7 are obtained according to
in Fig. 5(c). the monitored data of all 35 measuring points and show
Some distortion had occurred to the building before the the development of the ground surface heave of the moni-
field test due to the tunnel construction, site loading, etc. tored area. The ground surface heave is a gradual process,
1180 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

Fig. 5. Layout of the measuring points: (a) ground surface heave and the building heave, (b) building tilt, and (c) width of the cracks in the building.

and the degree of the ground heave increases as the grout- 3.3 Building heave
ing continues. In the PTD, the heave extent is largely con-
strained to the area between the jet grouting piles, mainly The building heave reflects similarities with the ground
because they act as artificial walls interrupting the flow surface heave. To analyze the effects of the grouting con-
path of the slurry, and the other areas are barely disturbed. struction on the building heave, we selected two typical

Fig. 6. Monitoring devices: (a) JMQJ-315AY inclinometer, and (b) strain gauge for recording the width of the cracks.
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1181

2018-01-03 2018-07-13 2018-08-19 500.0

Heave value (mm)

400.0

300.0

200.0

Jet grouting piles 100.0

0
0.000
500
R2
R3
Heave of ground surface (mm)

400 R4
R5
R6
300
R7
L2
200 L3
L4
L5
100 L6
L7
0
11-20 12-02 12-14 12-26 05-30 06-11 06-23 07-05 07-17 07-29 08-10 08-22
Date
Fig. 7. Mmonitored heave of the ground surface.

(a) 180 (b)

FL2 250 F3
FR2 F4
SL4
150 FL3 SR3
FR3
200 H7
H5
Building heave (mm)
Building heave (mm)

120 H6 H8
H15 H14
150
H18 H19
90 H27
H23
H24 100
60

50
30

07-02 07-22 08-11 08-31 09-20 10-10 10-30 11-19 12-09 12-29 09-14 09-29 10-14 10-29 11-13 11-28 12-13 12-28
Date Date

Fig. 8. Variation of the monitored building heave with time: (a) Line 1, and (b) Line 2.

measuring lines, namely Line 1, including measuring points The heave values of the measuring points of Lines 1 and
H5, H6, H15, H18, H23, and H24, and Line 2, including mea- 2 are delineated in Fig. 8, in which the corresponding dates
suring points H7, H8, H14, H19, H24, and H27, as shown in of each grouting cycle are marked. The building was lifted
Fig. 5(a). Then, the contour maps of the building were rapidly since the grouting work began, and the maximum
plotted based on the heave values of 24 measuring points. heave rate of measuring point H7 reached 41.55 mm/d on
And the development of the building heave was obtained Nov. 11, 2018. Each grouting cycle generally lasted 6–
from these contour maps at different dates as the grouting 10 days, but the heave rates increased dramatically in sev-
progressed. eral days. For example, the measuring point H5 of Line 1
1182 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

had a 77.8 mm heave during the grouting cycles of FL2 and

FR2, especially on Aug. 24 (18.41 mm), Sep. 15 (7.63 mm),
Sep. 19 (12.93 mm), Sep. 20 (15.35 mm), and Sep. 22
(13.89 mm). The sum of the heave values that occurred in
those five days accounted for 87.7% of the total heave val-
ues during the grouting cycles of FL2 and FR2 with a dura-
tion of 20 days. Similarly, the measuring point H7 of Line 2
dramatically increased on Oct. 26 (15.88 mm), Nov. 5
(15.19 mm), Nov. 7 (17.97 mm), and Nov. 11 (41.55 mm),
accounting for 71.52% of the total heave values during
the grouting cycle of F4. The building above the grouting
area was significantly deformed accompanied by the
appearance of cracks, as shown in Fig. 9.
The grouting volume dramatically grew, positively relat- Fig. 11. Details of the grouting veins on the tunnel face.
ing to the building heave, as shown in Fig. 10, and grouting
veins exposed on the tunnel faces were observed (Fig. 11), heave values reached 20%–44% and 15%–43% for Lines 1
indicating fracture grouting and its impact on the building and 2, respectively. The ground consolidation induced by
heave. The flow resistance of the slurry declines when frac- the dissipation of pore water pressure and the loss of the
tures are generated, causing the grouting volume to jacking force on the ground when the grouting work is
increase suddenly (Bai & Hou, 1991), and inducing signif- complete may be the primary causes of these settlements.
icant ground heave. Ding et al. (2019) reported a similar phenomenon of grout-
The building showed apparent settlements after grout- ing induced increase and then decrease of vertical displace-
ing, and the proportion of these settlements to the total ment of a shield tunnel.

Fig. 9. Building deformation caused by the grouting construction.

(a) 140 (b)

50 200 50
Building heave Building heave
Building heave of H5 (mm)

Building heave of H7 (mm)

Grouting volume (m3)

Grouting volume (m3)

120 Grouting volume 180 Grouting volume

40 40

100 160
30 30
140
80
20 20
120
60
10 10
100

40
08-16 08-21 08-26 08-31 09-05 09-10 09-15 09-20 09-25 10-21 10-26 10-31 11-05 11-10
Date Date

Fig. 10. Comparing the grouting volume and the building heave: (a) grouting cycle of F2, and (b) grouting cycle of F4.
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1183

(a) (b) (c)

Inspection platform
D C D C D C
Frame structure

Right line Right line Right line

Left line Left line Left line

A B A B A B

(d) 215.0
(e) 200.0
D C D 185.0
C
170.0

Heave value (mm)

155.0
140.0
125.0
Right line 110.0
95.00
Left line 80.00
65.00
A B A B 50.00
Final overlapping area 35.00
20.00

Fig. 12. Heave contours of the building at different dates (Unit: mm): (a) Sep. 22, (b) Oct. 3, (c) Oct. 21, (d) Nov. 11, and (e) Nov. 17.

Figure 12 presents contour maps of the building heave 3.4 Building tilt
obtained from the heave data of all the measuring points.
The building heave was firstly characterized by ‘‘twin Figure 13 delineates the variation in the dip angle of the
peaks” at both sides of the inspection platform since the measuring points and marks the dates at which the tilting
grouting work began at the shield shaft and the Futiank- trend changes. Limited to relatively few measuring points
ouan station simultaneously. Then, the ‘‘twin peaks” due to the failure of some of them during the test, we can-
moved toward each other gradually as the grouting pro- not monitor the building tilt specifically. Hence, more
gressed, met in the area where all grouting work ended, attention is paid to the outer walls of the building, namely
and merged into one large ‘‘single peak”. The contour lines walls AB, BC, CD, and AD, as shown in Fig. 1. Herein, we
are densely distributed near the peaks, especially the ‘‘sin- take the building center as the inner. An increase in the dip
gle peak”, indicating the significant differential upheaval angle means that the corresponding position of the measur-
occurring in those positions, which may lead to the severe ing point tilts inwards, and vice versa. Similar to the build-
tilt and even the cracking of the building. ing heave, the absolute value of dip angle of the measuring

Fig. 13. Variation of the monitored dip angle with time: (a) in the TD, and (b) in the PTD.
1184 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

point first increases then decreases either in the TD or (a)

PTD.
Table 2 presents the detailed information of the wall tilt-
ing, including the grouting cycles that have a significant
Shear crack
effect on each measuring point, the duration of the varying
stage and their corresponding tilt trends. In the TD of the
wall tilt, the measuring points of T1 and T4 or T7 and T8
have the same varying trend, indicating that the walls AD
and BC first tilt inward (the increasing stage) and then tilt (b)
outward (the decreasing stage); and finally tends to stabi-
lize. However, in the PTD of the wall tilt, different posi-
tions of the wall AB or CD may have different tilting
trends at the same time due to the dynamic changes of
Twist crack
grouting area. For example, the dip angle of T1 on wall
AB increased by 0.247° from Oct.30 to Nov.10, with the
maximum tilt rate of 0.066°/ d, while the dip angle of T5
on wall AB remained almost unchanged, indicating that Fig. 14. Crack forms of the different walls: (a) shear cracks in walls AD
twist deformation existed for wall AB. Although the tilting and BC, (b) twisty cracks in walls AB and CD.
date varies for each measuring point, their tilting process
are approximately similar: first increases then decreases Figure 15(a) shows that development of five tested
and eventually stabilizes in both TD and PTD of the wall cracks did not follow an obvious trend, which is different
tilt. from what we expected. The ground activities appear to
Oct. 21 and Nov. 11 are the divisions of the tilt stages have more influence on the building cracking according
and the end dates of the grouting cycles of F3 and F4, indi- to field investigation. The main bases are (1) the cracks still
cating the importance of these two grouting cycles. During developed after the grouting (after Nov. 11, 2018) and even
grouting, the dip angle of the walls kept rising with an had larger values of width than those during the grouting;
increase in the differential upheaval and reached the maxi- (2) the cracks significantly developed in windy weather; (3)
mum when the grouting work was complete. After the some building materials were stacked near the Futiank-
grouting, the differential upheaval of the building ouan station in early December, 2018, which also seems
decreased, reducing the dip angle of the walls; then, the tilt to make the cracks develop significantly.
values continued declining until they stabilized. The build- The crack C2 had a large width and continued to open
ing deformation most likely reached the maximum when during the test accompanied by discontinuous upheavals
the grouting construction of each cycle ended, so special near this position, indicating the existence of a weak plane,
attention should be paid. as shown in Fig. 15(b). As it can be seen, areas A and B are
divided by the weak plane, where Area A is located above
3.5 Building cracks the grouting area with a greater ground heave compared
with Area B. The existence of the weak plane weakens
Figure 14 summarizes the cracking forms of the build- the constraint of the ground heave in Area B on Area A,
ing. For walls along the PTD such as walls AD and BC, and therefore Area A is more prone to uplift. This
the heave values in the middle of the walls are greater than ultimately leads to discontinuous upheaval on the inspec-
those on the sides. The walls chiefly subject to shear forces tion platform, which aggravates the expansion of crack C2.
and shear cracks are formed. For walls along the TD, such
as walls AB and CD, differential inclinations are prone to 4 Numerical analysis
occur on both sides of walls, such as measuring points T1
and T5 of wall AB, due to changes of grouting areas. The The building damage is chiefly caused by the grouting
walls tend to be distorted, resulting in some twisty cracks. constructions based on the above analysis. However, some

Table 2
The development of the wall tilting.
In the TD In the PTD
T1 T4 T7 T8 T1 T5 T3
Grouting cycles F4, SL4 F4, SL4 F2, F3 F2, F3 F4, SL4 F3, FL4 FR3
Increasing stage Before Nov. 11 Before Oct. 21 Before Nov. 11 Before Oct. 30 Before Oct. 21
Wall tilt Wall AD tilts inward Wall BC tilts inward – –
Decreasing stage After Nov. 11 After Oct. 21 After Nov. 11 After Oct. 30 After Oct. 21
Wall tilt Wall AD tilts outward Wall BC tilts outward – –
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1185

(a) 1.5
F3 (b)
F4
1.0
Crack width (mm)

0.5 Area A

0.0 Discontinuous
upheaval
-0.5
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
09-20 10-05 10-20 11-04 11-19 12-04 Area B
Date

Fig. 15. Development of the building cracks: (a) variation in the monitored width of cracks with time, and (b) weak plane near the crack of measuring
point C2.

key information, such as how the slurry diffuses into the Jet grouting
ground and its correlation with the ground heave, is diffi- piles
cult to obtain through the field test. Numerical simulations
can fill these gaps. The simulations of the advanced tunnel

35 m
grouting based on the discrete element method (DEM)
were conducted utilizing the Particle Flow Code Two-
Dimensional (PFC2D) program to investigate the micro- Grouting zone 7m
scopic flow characteristics of the slurry and their effect on 25 m
the ground heave.

65 m
4.1 DEM model
Fig. 16. Model developed based on the discrete element method.
Performing fluid–solid coupling calculations in DEM
programs is extremely time-consuming. To improve com-
putational efficiency, we made two simplifications to the
geological survey data and the laboratory tests, as pre-
model. Firstly, the building was neglected since its defor-
sented in Table 3.
mation was not of concern in this section. And the vertical
A commercially available ‘‘pipe–domain” model in
stress contributed from the building can be negligible com-
PFC2D was adopted to achieve fluid mechanical simula-
pared with the earth pressure at the grouting areas, indicat-
tion (Zhang et al., 2019b), as shown in Fig. 17. In the
ing the building has little effect on the slurry diffusion in
‘‘pipe–domain” model, each contact between two particles
ground. Then, the particles in the areas away from the
is considered as a ‘‘pipe” (blue line) for the flow of the
grouting zone were magnified, and their contact parame-
slurry. A series of enclosed ‘‘domains” (red polygons) is
ters were adjusted according to the method of Deng et al.
created by drawing lines between the centers of all parti-
(2017). The simplified model has a dimension of
cles. The pipes can store the flow information, and the
65 m
35 m, and particles number of 47 665, as shown
domains connected by the pipes can store the fluid
in Fig. 16.
pressure.
The permeability coefficient of silty clay, coarse sand,
In each time step of Dt, the domain’s pressure in the
sandy cobble, and strongly weathered granite is 0.001, 25,
grouting hole is set to the grouting pressure firstly, so that
80, and 0.3 m/d, respectively. Compared with coarse sand
pressure difference exists between domains. Driven by the
and sandy cobble, the permeability of silty clay and
pressure difference of adjacent domains (e.g., domains 1
strongly weathered granite is negligible. Note that since
and 2 in Fig. 17), fluid flows from domain 1 with higher
the flow channels of the slurry are interrupted by the jet
pressure to domain 2. For a pipe with aperture of a, length
grouting piles located on both sides of the tunnels, the
of L and unit depth, the rate of volumetric flow (q) is gov-
slurry is assumed to flow only in the coarse sand and sandy
erned by Darcy law:
cobble strata between the jet grouting piles, defined as the
grouting zone in Fig. 16. A bonded-particle model (BPM)
was adopted, and the micro parameters of the strata were ðp2  p1 Þ
q ¼ Ka3 ; ð1Þ
determined after parameter calibration according to the L
1186 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

Table 3
The micro parameters of the strata.
Formation Particle radius, r Friction Normal stiffness, kn Shear stiffness, ks Tensile strength, Shear strength,
(m) coefficient, m (N/m) (N/m) TF (N) SF (N)
Fill 0.115–0.2 0.29 9.72
107 3.60
107 10 000 10 000
Silty sand 0.115–0.2 0.27 5.23
107 3.25
107 5000 5000
Silty clay 0.115–0.2 0.20 2.97
107 1.10
107 8000 8000
Coarse sand 0.035–0.05 005 0.6 6.0
107 6.0
107 1000 1000
Sandy cobble 0.03–0.18 0.6 6.0
107 6.0
107 1000 1000
Strongly weathered 0.05–0.075 2.2 3.64
107 3.64
107 6000 6000
granite

Domain 2
Centroid of
domain
Domain 1

Domain 3

Pipe a
L

Fig. 17. A schematic of the pipe–domain model.

where K is the hydraulic conductivity coefficient relating to 4.2 Numerical results

the permeability of the formation; p1 and p2 are the grout-
ing pressures of domains 1 and 2, respectively. 4.2.1 Flow characteristics of slurry
The fluid pressure of each domain updates according to Generally, the slurry primarily penetrates the ground
the change of q, which is given as under small grouting pressure. Fracture grouting may
occur as grouting pressure increases, raising the grouting
Kf X
Dp ¼ ð qDt  DV d Þ; ð2Þ rate significantly (Yun et al., 2017). Figure 18 shows the
Vd grout diffusion process at a grouting pressure of 2.0 MPa.
where Kf and Vd are the fluid bulk modulus and the appar- Consistent with grouting veins observed on the tunnel
ent volume of the domain, respectively. faces, the fracture grouting occurrs. As the grouting pro-
The updated fluid pressure is applied to the surrounding gresses, the grouting rate can be approximately divided
particles as equivalent body force (Fi), causing particle into four stages: a rapid decrease, a rapid increase, fluctu-
movement and deformation of domains, which modifies ating around a high value, and a steady decrease. Figure 18
the contact force and affects fluid flow by altering the pipe also presents the simulated rate of the ground heave, which
apertures. The equivalent body force (Fi) is calculated from is discussed later.
fluid pressure of domain (p), the contact normal unit vector Through laboratory tests, Yun et al. (2017) observed
connecting two particles (ni) and the contact length (s), fracture–permeation grouting and found that fracture
which is given as grouting and the penetration grouting occurred simultane-
ously in saturated weathered granite soil. The same phe-
F i ¼ pni s: ð3Þ
nomenon was observed in the numerical simulations.
The time step of the fluid calculations is determined Fracture grouting chiefly occurs in newly generated frac-
according to the fluid parameters and is not equal to that tures, while the penetration grouting happens in the other
of the mechanical calculations. The time-dependent vari- areas, especially on both sides of the developed fractures.
ables in the simulation like grouting rate are inaccurate The pipes for slurry flow become wider when fracture
in values but correct in their trends. Thus, the numerical grouting occurs, increasing the grouting rate. However,
results are used for qualitative analysis. penetration grouting involves a reduction of the grouting
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1187

Fig. 18. Simulated process of the slurry diffusion.

rate because the pressure gradient declines as the penetra-

tion grouting proceeds. The trade-off between the opposite
effects of these two types of grouting determines the trend
of the grouting rate.
In stage 1, before the fracture grouting occurs, the slurry
penetrates the ground, and the grouting rate decreases
rapidly. Then, new fractures are generated under large
grouting pressures, indicating the beginning of stage 2.
The effect of the fracture grouting dominates that of the
penetration grouting, leading to an increase in grouting
rate. Stage 2 is relatively short but contributes the most
to the growth of the grouting rate. In stage 3, many frac-
tures exist in ground, allowing the penetration grouting
to occur in large areas, so its impact can gradually rival
that of the fracture grouting. The decreasing effect of the Fig. 19. Simulated ground heave.
penetration grouting approximately balances the increasing
effect of the fracture grouting, so the grouting rate fluctu-
ates around a high value. In stage 4, the rate of fracture between the jet grouting piles in consistence with the field
grouting is remarkably reduced mainly because the jet observations.
grouting piles interrupt the flow of the slurry, and the pen- The heave rate of five measuring points P1–P5 was mon-
etration grouting gains dominance. Therefore, the grouting itored for further study, whose results are compared with
rate continues to decline until the penetration grouting the grouting rate, as shown in Fig. 18. The measuring point
stabilizes. P1 is closest to the injection hole, whose heave rate matches
well with the grouting rate and can be divided into four
stages: a rapid decrease, a rapid increase, fluctuating
4.2.2 Ground disturbance around a high value, and a steady decrease, indicating that
Five measuring lines at a depth of 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16 m the ground disturbance is affected by both penetration
from the ground surface, with injection hole located at the grouting and fracture grouting. Moreover, the ground
zero position of the coordinates horizontally, were set up to heave has a lag effect; indeed, the heave occurs later, and
monitor the ground disturbance, which is indicates in it has a smaller value at distances further away from the
Fig. 19. The ground heave is evident, and the closer to injection hole, which indicates that the ground may be
the injection hole, the larger the ground heave becomes. heavily disturbed while no deformation is monitored on
Moreover, the ground heave primarily occurs in the areas the ground surface.
1188 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

Fig. 20. (a) Forces applied on the soil particles, and (b) velocity field of the soil particles.

Figure 20 presents the vertical forces and velocities cated in Figs. 7 and 19, the ground heave is much more sev-
applied on the soil particles near the injection hole. In ver- ere in the area between the jet grouting piles, inducing
tical direction, the forces applied on the particles on both significant differential upheaval of the ground surface and
sides of the fractures are significantly larger, due to the high the building, which is the root cause of the building
pore water pressure gradient, thereby exerting large seep- damage.
age forces on the particles. The particles on the upper side
of the fractures move upward under the vertical seepage 5 Causes of fracture grouting
forces, causing the ground to heave.
5.1 Factors affecting fracture grouting
4.2.3 The mechanism of ground heave
Bai and Hou (1991) observed that fracture grouting is a Various factors, including soil properties (cohesion and
process of first compacting and then fracturing, and can be permeability), properties of grouting materials (water/ce-
divided into stages of compaction, fracturing in vertical ment ratio and viscosity), and grouting parameters (grout-
direction and fracturing in horizontal direction through ing pressure), can induce fracture grouting.
the grouting test in clay. Fractures first originate in the ver-
tical direction mainly due to smaller flow resistance. As the 5.1.1 Soil properties
grouting progresses, the direction of the principal stresses For cohesive soils, cohesion increases the possibilities
in ground changes, and horizontal fracturing will occur for fracturing (Bezuijen et al., 2011). Fracture will originate
when the horizontal stress is larger than the vertical stress, in all cases for cohesive soils with low permeability, because
contributing the most to the ground heave. the slurry cannot permeate (Mori & Tamura, 1987). For
The mechanism of the ground heave due to fracture cohesionless soils like sands, permeability is the most
grouting in this case is similar to but different from that important factor affecting fracture grouting. As with cohe-
mentioned in Bai and Hou (1991). Firstly, the compaction sive soils, smaller permeability makes fractures prone to
stage is absence, but the penetration grouting occurs simul- originate. But fractures can still occur in cohesionless and
taneously with fracture grouting due to large permeability permeable soils with the right grouting materials and
of the sandy cobble stratum. Secondly, the fractures largely grouting parameters.
spread along the horizontal direction, which is probably
related to the construction of the jet grouting piles in the 5.1.2 Grouting materials properties
early stages. Wong and Poh (2000) mentioned that the Material parameters affecting fracture grouting mainly
compaction effect caused by jet grouting construction include water/cement ratio and viscosity of slurry. Gener-
could lead to the lateral displacement and even heave of ally, a higher water/cement ratio of the slurry facilities frac-
the surrounding soil. The ground between the jet grouting ture grouting. Wang et al. (2016) conducted laboratory
piles was compressed, resulting in a continuous increase in tests on loose sands with slurry of different water/cement
the horizontal stress and even larger than the vertical stress. ratios and found that a higher water/cement ratio of 1.0
The soil particles moved conveniently upward and down- makes fracture start to originate even at a low grouting
ward under the grouting pressure, so horizontal fractures pressure of 100 kPa and continues to propagate as the
were generated. grouting pressure increases.
Horizontal fracturing that causes the most ground heave Similarly, a higher viscosity of the slurry also facilitates
is of great importance to the building deformation. As indi- fracture grouting. As presented in Table 1, three grouting
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1189

materials were used: the Portland cement slurry, the water/cement ratio (close to 1.0) of the slurries are adopted
sulphoaluminate cement slurry and the Portland cement– to ensure their injectability.
sodium silicate slurry. The apparent viscosity of the Port- The selection of grouting pressure is rather contradic-
land cement slurry with a water/cement ratio of 1.0 is quite tory. A grouting pressure of less than 0.4 MPa is appropri-
small (approximately 19 mPas) and almost constant dur- ate based on the DEM simulation. But the slurry is difficult
ing grouting (Zhu et al., 2018). Fracture grouting is less to be injected under this grouting pressure, not to mention
likely to occur in permeable strata when the Portland the ground reinforcement and water blocking due to the
cement slurry is used as the grouting material. The viscosity presence of the confined water. So the grouting pressure
of the latter two slurries increases significantly with time, had to be increased. The groundwater condition appears
and this is more pronounced for Portland cement–sodium to have a significant effect on the fracture grouting, and this
silicate slurry. Zhu et al. (2018) studied the grouting perfor- will be discussed in details.
mance of Portland cement-sodium silicate slurry, which has
almost identical material parameters to this paper. The vis- 5.2 Effect of groundwater conditions on grouting
cosity increases rapidly to approximately 80 Pas within
1 min. This increase in viscosity reduces the soil’s perme- There are two layers of groundwater within the tunnel-
ability in the vicinity of the grouting hole and increases ing site with the first layer being stored in the fill stratum
flow resistance of slurry. In subsequent grouting, fractures and hydraulically linked to surface water, and the second
are required to provide channels for the slurry flow, and layer being confined within the coarse sand and sandy cob-
fracture grouting occurred. ble strata, providing high water pressure and connecting
with the nearby Sham Chun River. Figure 1 shows that
5.1.3 Grouting pressure the minimum distance between the tunnels and the Sham
An investigation of grouting pressures in the sandy cob- Chun River is shorter than 150 m, allowing abundant
ble strata of more than 20 tunnels shows that they are lar- water supplies to the tunneling site. The water inflow of
gely controlled at 0.3–1.0 MPa, much smaller than the the tunnel is approximately 4930 m3/d during the tunnel
grouting pressure used in this case of approximately construction. Water seepage and even water gushing exist,
2.0 MPa. Wang et al. (2016) reported that an increase in as shown in Fig. 21. The grouting is therefore required for
the grouting pressure shifted the grouting pattern from water blocking. In this context, slurries are difficult to be
compaction grouting to fracture grouting on loose sands. injected and the grouting pressure should be increased.
The fracture initiation pressure in this case was further On the other hand, slurries with high viscosity, such as
explored through DEM simulations and was determined Portland cement–sodium silicate slurry and sulphoalumi-
to be 0.4–0.5 MPa, which is close to the vertical stress at nate cement slurry, are required to block the groundwater.
the grout hole. This is because the horizontal stress is larger But this will increase the grouting pressure again due to
than the vertical stress, and soil particles are more conve- their higher viscosities.
niently squeezed in the vertical direction, which is con- Measures, including the construction of the vertical jet
firmed by the fact that the fractures largely spread along grouting piles and pumping wells, were taken for lowering
the horizontal direction both in situ and numerically. the groundwater table before the grouting construction, as
In conclusion, a lower permeability of the soil, a higher shown in Fig. 22. All the piles and wells were driven into
water/cement ratio and viscosity of the slurry, and a higher strongly weathered granite with a depth of about 25 m.
grouting pressure, facilitate the fracture grouting (Yun In the early stages, the great difficulty of the dewatering
et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016). The fracture grouting
occurred in the sandy cobble with permeability coefficient
80 m/d, mainly because the highly viscous Portland
cement-sodium silicate slurry and the sulphoaluminate
cement slurry led to the reduction of the soil’ permeability
and the increase of the grouting pressure, which increased
the possibility for fracture grouting.

5.1.4 Parameter determination of grouting

The parameter determination of grouting is challenging
for loose and watery strata. For this case, the grouting
needs to meet the dual requirements of ground reinforce-
ment and water blocking, so the grouting materials in
Table 1 are used. The Portland cement slurry is mainly
used for ground reinforcement since it can spread in
ground widely. And the other two slurries, which are more
viscous and have a shorter setting time, are mainly used for
water blocking as well as ground reinforcement. The higher Fig. 21. Tunnel water due to water seepage and gushing.
1190 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191

Fig. 22. Dewatering measurements: (a) a schematic diagram, and (b) boreholes of the jet grouting piles.

work was not realized. The water table declined from depth the grouting range, and fracture grouting inevitably
of 1.2–6.0 m to 7.0–11.0 m, much higher than expected occurs.
since only 15 pumping wells were constructed. Hence, 31
additional pumping wells were added, lowing the water This work attempts to offer some suggestions for similar
table to around 19.0 m, near the top of the tunnels but still cases based on the above analyses. Firstly, much attention
above the grouting areas. More drastic measures for dewa- should be given to the dewatering work in the early stages,
tering have not been taken because this would be costly, especially when confined water exists in the tunneling site;
impact the building and extend the construction period. the flow paths to the water source should also be inter-
As a result, the building was abandoned. rupted. Furthermore, measures should be taken to reduce
the grouting pressure when the groundwater problem can-
5.3 Lessons learned not be solved. For example, a high-permeability cement
composed of ultramicro particles with an average particle
Some adjustments, such as reducing the reinforcement size of 1.5 mm was employed for the grouting construction
length of single-cycle grouting from 20 to 13 m and using of a water-rich tunnel to reduce the pore water pressure of
slurries with smaller volume proportion of Portland the grouting zone (Gong et al., 2018); it could relieve the
cement–sodium silicate slurry, were made to the grouting ground heave to some extent.
project to alleviate the ground heave, as shown in Table 1.
The maximum value of the building heave was reduced but
was still approximately 250 mm because the root causes of 5 Conclusions
the fracture grouting were not solved: too much of ground-
water and high grouting pressures. This study examined the characteristics of the grouting-
The failure case reported by Liu et al. (2018), that is, the induced ground surface heave and the customs building
uneven uplifts of track and trackbed were induced by sec- deformation in the field and analyzed the details of the
ondary grouting in a shield tunnel, has some similarities slurry diffusion process and its correlation with the ground
to the case studied herein. Thus, we summarize the com- disturbance by numerical simulation. Finally, the causes of
mon causes of these two incidents as follows: the fracture grouting occurring in the tunnels were dis-
cussed. The main conclusions drawn from the findings of
(1) The presence of groundwater makes the control of the current work are that:
the grouting pressure difficult. On the one hand, it
is necessary to use a high grouting pressure to trans- 1. Fracture grouting is the principal cause of the ground
port the slurry to the seepage point. On the other heave and damage to the customs building. The rate
hand, using cement–sodium silicate slurry with high and volume of the grouting dramatically increased with
viscosity reduces the injectability of the slurry, which the introduction of the fracture grouting, resulting in a
necessitates an increase in the grouting pressure. significant heave and tilt of the building. After the grout-
(2) The grouting pressure is larger than in site ground ing, a considerable settlement appeared, and the dip
stresses, giving rise to fracture grouting. angle of the walls declined. However, no remarkable
(3) There are problems with large grouting volume in opening or closing of the cracks in the building was
both cases since it is probably difficult to control noticed during the test.
 Z. Dong et al. / Underground Space 7 (2022) 1175–1191 1191

2. The rate of the ground heave correlates positively with in tortuous fractures with flowing water. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 108, 103693.
the grouting rate, whose trend is determined by the Finno, R. J., Voss, F. T., Jr., Rossow, E., & Blackburn, J. T. (2005).
trade-off between the opposite effects of penetration Evaluating damage potential in buildings affected by excavations.
and fracture grouting. Fracture grouting is marked by Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(10),
1199–1210.
significant increases in the grouting volume, which can Gan, X. L., Yu, J. L., Gong, X. N., Hou, Y. M., Liu, N. W., & Zhu, M.
reach 2–3 times the usual level according to the field (2022). Response of operating metro tunnels to compensation grouting
investigation. The heave of ground surface is not a good of an underlying large-diameter shield tunnel: A case study in
Hangzhou. Underground Space, 7(2), 219–232.
indicator of fracture grouting due to the lag effect in the Graf, E. D. (1969). Compaction grouting technique and observations.
transmission of ground heave. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 95(5),
3. Factors affecting fracture grouting were discussed. 1151–1158.
Gong, B., Jiang, Y. J., Okatsu, K., Wu, X. Z., Teduka, J., & Aoki, K.
Despite the permeable strata in the grouted area, frac- (2018). The seepage control of the tunnel excavated in high-pressure
ture grouting occurred, since the increase in the viscosity water condition using multiple times grouting method. Processes, 6(9),
of the grouting materials reduces the soil permeability 159.
He, X. C., Xu, Y. S., Shen, S. L., & Zhou, A. N. (2020). Geological
and increases the flow resistance of slurry. Fractures will environment problems during metro shield tunneling in Shenzhen,
originate when the grouting pressure is greater than the China. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13(2), 1–18.
fracture initiation pressure of ground. Liu, J. L., Hamza, O., Davies-Vollum, K. S., & Liu, J. Q. (2018).
Repairing a shield tunnel damaged by secondary grouting. Tunnelling
4. A grouting pressure of less than 0.4 MPa is appropriate and Underground Space Technology, 80, 313–321.
to prevent fracture grouting, however, it is difficult to Liu, Q., Xiao, F., & Zhao, Z. Y. (2020). Grouting knowledge discovery
achieve due to the existence of confined water in the based on data mining. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
95, 103093.
grouting area. High grouting pressures and more viscous Mori, A., & Tamura, M. (1987). Hydrofracturing pressure of cohesive
slurries are required for water blocking, which is the soils. Soils and Foundations, 27(1), 14–22.
root cause of the fracture grouting. Therefore, sufficient Ou, C. Y., Hsieh, P. G., & Chiou, D. C. (1993). Characteristics of ground
surface settlement during excavation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
attention should be paid to the dewatering work to 30(5), 758–767.
avoid similar incidents. Schweiger, H. F., Kummerer, C., Otterbein, R., & Falk, E. (2004).
Numerical modeling of settlement compensation by means of fracture
grouting. Soils and Foundations, 44(1), 71–86.
Sheen, M. S. (2002). Grouting pressures and damage analysis of adjacent
Declaration of Competing Interest buildings. Part II: Case study. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-ground Improvement, 6(2), 4758.
Vesić, A. S. (1972). Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass. Journal of
The authors declare that they have no known competing Soil Mechanics and Foundations Div, 98(3), 265–290.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have Wang, Q., Wang, S. Y., Sloan, S. W., Sheng, D. C., & Pakzad, R. (2016).
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Experimental investigation of pressure grouting in sand. Soils and
Foundations, 56(2), 161–173.
Wong, I. H., & Poh, T. Y. (2000). Effects of jet grouting on adjacent
Acknowledgments ground and structures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 126(3), 247–256.
Yang, C. W., Guo, J. H., Lian, J., & Wang, Z. M. (2020). Study on
This work was supported by the Huxiang High-level microscopic roadbed grouting mechanism based on CFD-DEM
Talent Gathering Project Innovation Team Project (Grant coupling algorithm. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020,
No. 2019RS1008). 4948738.
Yang, J. S., Zhang, C., Fu, J. Y., Wang, S. Y., Ou, X. F., & Xie, Y. P.
(2020). Pre-grouting reinforcement of underwater karst area for shield
References tunneling passing through Xiangjiang River in Changsha, China.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 100, 103380.
Bai, Y., & Hou, X. Y. (1991). Mechanism and application of splitting Yun, J. W., Park, J. J., Kwon, Y. S., Kim, B. K., & Lee, I. M. (2017).
grouting reinforcement in soft soil foundation. Chinese Journal of Cement-based fracture grouting phenomenon of weathered granite
Geotechnical Engineering, 13(2), 89–92 (in Chinese). soil. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 21(1), 232–242.
Bezuijen, A., te Grotenhuis, R., van Tol, A. F., Bosch, J. W., & Haasnoot, Zhang, D. M., Liu, Z. S., Wang, R. L., & Zhang, D. M. (2019). Influence
J. K. (2011). Analytical model for fracture grouting in sand. Journal of of grouting on rehabilitation of an over-deformed operating shield
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(6), 611–620. tunnel lining in soft clay. Acta Geotechnica, 14(4), 1227–1247.
Contini, A., Cividini, A., & Gioda, G. (2007). Numerical evaluation of the Zhang, Q., Zhang, X. P., & Ji, P. Q. (2019). Numerical study of interaction
surface displacements due to soil grouting and to tunnel excavation. between a hydraulic fracture and a weak plane using the bonded-
International Journal of Geomechanics, 7(3), 217–226. particle model based on moment tensors. Computers and Geotechnics,
Deng, Y. B., Yang, Y. C., Shi, D. D., & Liu, W. B. (2017). Refinement and 105, 79–93.
application of variable particle-size methods in 3D discrete element Zhao, C. Y., Schmüdderich, C., Barciaga, T., & Röchterc, L. (2019).
modeling for large-scale problems. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Response of building to shallow tunnel excavation in different types of
Engineering, 39(1), 62–70 (in Chinese). soil. Computers and Geotechnics, 115, 103165.
Ding, W. Q., Duan, C., & Zhang, Q. Z. (2020). Experimental and Zhou, S. H., Xiao, J. H., Di, H. G., & Zhu, Y. H. (2018). Differential
numerical study on a grouting diffusion model of a single rough settlement remediation for new shield metro tunnel in soft soils using
fracture in rock mass. Applied Sciences, 10(20), 7041. corrective grouting method: Case study. Canadian Geotechnical Jour-
Ding, Z., Zhang, X., Yin, X. S., & Jiang, J. Q. (2019). Analysis of the nal, 55(12), 1877–1887.
influence of soft soil grouting on the metro tunnel based on field Zhu, M. T., Zhang, Q. S., Zhang, X., & Hui, B. (2018). Comparative study
measurement. Engineering Computations, 36(5), 1522–1541. of soil grouting with cement slurry and cement-sodium silicate slurry.
Du, X., Fang, H., Wang, S., Xue, B., & Wang, F. (2021). Experimental Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 1893195.
and practical investigation of the sealing efficiency of cement grouting